i like the idea for there being a score for the battle that you are in but the way it is warking i dont agree with i think there should be more of a unit kill score witch would give you so many points for every unit that you kill losers and winners would score but the one who kills the most would score more this would incourage ppl to fight more and not just sit back and biuld

My idea is to tier the score gained based upon power. I don't mind getting less score for hitting a newb or a small army that is easy for me to kill. I want something for the armor I lose killing them though or why bother killing this sub who is 45% of my power.

Amount of the enemies power4x 2x 2x<>.5x .5x theirs.2 score .5 1 1.5

As I stated to you before I don't agree with this way either.. I'll explain why.

In my opinion, any system that encourages having LOWER power is a flawed system. You don't play Battledawn to get low power, you play Battledawn to get high power, big armies, etc etc. No matter whether it is an army from a sub who has 500 range units anti your chassis or the top player you are fighting who has 500 range units anti your chassis, I think you should be rewarded equally for killing those units. Of course with the added option of not awarding score when killing those with a power level of under 40 or 50.

The idea behind the concept is nice, but the concept itself when implemented into BD is flawed at almost every aspect.

yeah, you could tweak it so that its not just a directly 1/2 power limitation, and ratio's to how much you gain/lose from battle, but it still comes down to the fact that its taking value away from the score boards...

BD is not a game about every individual battle, and we dont need a score telling us how much fighting you've done in a round. Victory in BD is achieved by controlling the relics, and maintaining that position by having map control.

Yeah, this may help individual players, on the lower end of the spectrum, jump up in ranks around their friends because they caught a squad or 2 of a high-ranked player off-guard... but in the grand scheme of things, all it REALLY does, is distort the rankings of high-ranked alliances after the first war. It'll turn out that A) The winner gets loads of score, because they didn't get many losses (thus they keep their units AND a score boost), or B) It was a close war, and both sides lose most of their armies. The winner, which barely won, gets a small score boost, but it wont matter, because an up and coming alliance with an army will prolly wipe them out.

With score being so closely tied to combat, and now being based on troops killed vs lost, it is too similar to power. In order to separate it from being so similar in effect to power, it would most likely end up imbalanced (similar to the effect of the initial implementation of Battle Score --no loss). The more you balance it, the less useful it will be for anything, except for the lower-ranks...even then. Lower ranks would just lose the score they gain at first useful combat

With long-term vision, i can see how this would go...So i'm saying no....

I like the idea of score. But I feel that power should not matter in it. If you have 200 power and some one attacks you and only has 70 power, then you should still get score from it. I mean you are taking loses for the battle so its only fair. Losing 200 units in a battle that you win and getting no score for it I feel is not fair.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum